W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-prov-wg@w3.org > February 2012

Re: quick comment on Note in ProvRDF mapping

From: Luc Moreau <L.Moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 09:33:26 +0000
Message-ID: <EMEW3|0ff0ceb2c9afe46bf956677fa9f2843eo1D9XV08L.Moreau|ecs.soton.ac.uk|4F3A2A66.2010906@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
To: James Cheney <jcheney@inf.ed.ac.uk>
CC: Timothy Lebo <lebot@rpi.edu>, "public-prov-wg@w3.org" <public-prov-wg@w3.org>
Hi James,

I think it was an oversight on our behalf (Paolo and I) not to include
an id for alternateOf/specializationOf. In our working copy,
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/prov/raw-file/default/model/working-copy/towards-wd4.html
we have added them.

I also take the view that if we have an id then we have attributes, and 
vice-versa.

As a minimum, subtyping would be useful for these relations.
You will also recall, very early discussions about mapping of attributes 
for IVPof.
This could also be encoded with attributes.

Cheers,
Luc


On 02/14/2012 09:18 AM, James Cheney wrote:
> While we're on the subject, I'm no sure why alternateOf and specializationOf have attributes now, other than uniformity.
>
> I think that if the relation has an id describing the relationship (used/Usage, rtc.) Then attributes make sense.  If an id doesn't make sense then attributes don't either - in RDF we need an id to hang the attributess off of.
>
> I think that brevity should take precedence over uniformity, else we'll reinvent RDF or XML.
>
> --James
>
>
>    

-- 
Professor Luc Moreau
Electronics and Computer Science   tel:   +44 23 8059 4487
University of Southampton          fax:   +44 23 8059 2865
Southampton SO17 1BJ               email: l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
United Kingdom                     http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~lavm
Received on Tuesday, 14 February 2012 09:34:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 13:06:56 GMT